A quick punctuation lesson before we proceed: In a list of three or more items — like “beans, potatoes and rice” — some people would put a comma after potatoes, and some would leave it out. A lot of people feel very, very strongly about it...

The debate over commas is often a pretty inconsequential one, but it was anything but for the truck drivers. Note the lack of Oxford comma — also known as the serial comma — in the following state law, which says overtime rules do not apply to:

Does the law intend to exempt the distribution of the three categories that follow, or does it mean to exempt packing for the shipping or distribution of them?

Delivery drivers distribute perishable foods, but they don’t pack the boxes themselves. Whether the drivers were subject to a law that had denied them thousands of dollars a year depended entirely on how the sentence was read.

If there were a comma after “shipment,” it might have been clear that the law exempted the distribution of perishable foods. But the appeals court on Monday sided with the drivers, saying the absence of a comma produced enough uncertainty to rule in their favor. It reversed a lower court decision.

The Oxford comma is pretty much par for the course in academia, as both the MLA and Chicago Manual of Style require it. This is a perfect example of why. As a proponent, this ruling makes me smile.

It seems to me that the drafter of the law properly omitted a comma after "shipment" and that the court properly construed the law as therefore not applying to mere "distribution" sans "packing".

Wouldn't a wooden Oxford comma-unist have robotically put a comma after "shipment", thereby destroying the obviously intent of the law?

I think commas should be put before the last item of a series only when to do so clarifies meaning or otherwise enhances readability and understanding, not as an arbitrary rule that commas must always appear after X number of entries in a series.

though cmos and other style guides adhere to the oxford comma, the ap stylebook, nyt stylebook and news outlets, for the most, don't. not anymore, anyway.

i'm a nerd about punctuation. knowing when and how to use punctuation is a lost skill, along with writing in general. almost no one knows how to use punctuation anymore - why and when and how to use a comma; why, when and how to use a period; why, when and how to use a semicolon; etc.

notice i didn't use the oxford comma in the above sentence? many people wouldn't think to use a semicolon to separate the series at the end, but that's conventional style. at the same time, adding oxford commas in that sentence - commas on top of commas - would've been excessive and unnecessary, imo.

punctuation is, among other things, "designed to help readers understand a story without stumbling," one newspaper stylebook says. the key is that strictly using the oxford comma or strictly not, and without consideration of whether it helps or hurts in a particular circumstance, defeats the goal of clear and clean writing.

print and online media don't use the oxford comma because it's unnecessary in most situations that can be clearly understood without it. in the case of the state law, the meaning of the sentence could be read more than one way. because it wasn't clear, it clearly needed a comma, regardless of any declared style.

style guides are, after all, just guides. common sense should be applied.

here's a teaser i've given copy editors, to illustrate how important punctuation, and using the correct punctuation, is. take a look at this paragraph.

The people who are confirmed for the party are Greg, Taylor, his wife, Lisa, a cousin, two people from work, Tom and Jeff, two friends from next door, Betty, my niece, and Carol.

My last editor was in the pro-Oxford comma camp. Since writing Mother's Night, I have been using the Oxford comma ever since.

_________________If you cannot inspire yourself to read a book about women's basketball, or any book about women's sports, you cannot inspire any young girl or boy to write a book about them. http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/Richardstrek

The people who are confirmed for the party are Greg; Taylor, his wife; Lisa, a cousin; two people from work; Tom and Jeff, two friends from next door; Betty, my niece; and Carol.

Even better would be to put this in a list format, as it would facilitate easier reading.

That would be true....I was also going to say, familiarity with one's audience is relevant.

How do we know Greg is married to Taylor, instead of Taylor bringing HIS (un-named) wife? Or is LISA his wife? One *might* assume Tom and Jeff are 2 friends from next door, or....are there 2 (un-named) friends from next door coming, as well as Tom and Jeff?

I must say, if I were hosting and received this note, I'd be very strongly inclined to get clarification from the writer as to precisely who's coming.

Sambista's example cannot be punctuated using just commas, Oxford or nay. It must be punctuated with semicolons to separate each guest or group of guests to the party, using commas only to set off appositives, as JIT has attempted to do. Personally, I also favor a colon after the introductory word to a semicolon-ed list -- in sambista's case, after the word "are". Most legal drafters use this punctuation convention.

Sambista's example cannot be punctuated using just commas, Oxford or nay. It must be punctuated with semicolons to separate each guest or group of guests to the party, using commas only to set off appositives, as JIT has attempted to do. Personally, I also favor a colon after the introductory word to a semicolon-ed list -- in sambista's case, after the word "are". Most legal drafters use this punctuation convention.

my only disagreement here is that "are" isn't necessary. the words preceding a colon can be, and often are, understood as essentially a label.